Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Oct 30;18(10):e0293481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293481

Comparative physiological study of sea cucumbers from eastern waters of United States

Eaint Honey Aung Win 1, Sinthia Mumu 1, Nahian Fahim 1, Kusum Parajuli 1, Elliott Blumenthal 1, Rebecca Palu 1, Ahmed Mustafa 1,*
Editor: Mohammed Fouad El Basuini2
PMCID: PMC10615258  PMID: 37903114

Abstract

Sea cucumbers, belonging to the phylum Echinodermata, are known to possess valuable bioactive compounds that have medicinal properties. In several countries, such as Korea, China, and Japan, they are cultured in the aquaculture industries for food and medicinal purposes. Research has shown that different species of sea cucumbers each possesses unique medicinal values. As a result, we strive towards finding species with better health resilience in aquaculture system to be cultured for nutritional and medicinal purposes. In this paper, we compared the physiological and immunological parameters of three species of sea cucumbers, Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. Pygmaea) from the waters of the eastern United States as they have not been studied extensively. Four different cells of sea cucumbers, phagocytic, red spherule, white spherule, and vibratile cells, that contribute to their immunity were counted. C. frondosa exhibited the highest concentrations of phagocytic cells, white spherule cells, and vibratile cells, compared to the two other species. Due to its high phagocytic cell concentration, the highest phagocytic capacity was seen in C. frondosa although it was not statistically significant. We also observed that C. frondosa had the highest total cell count and the highest concentration of coelomic protein among the three species. Lastly, C. frondosa possessed the highest lysozyme activity. Taken together, we concluded that C. frondosa is the best of the three species compared to be reared in the aquaculture systems for use in the food and biomedicine industries due to its immunological and physiological properties.

1. Introduction

Sea cucumbers, also known as Holothurians, are invertebrates that belong to the phylum Echinodermata [1]. These animals have a unique elongated body structure that is supported by a hydrostatic skeleton, and the body muscle is shaped by a fluid-filled cavity called the coelom [2]. In Asian countries, species such as Stichopus hermanni, Thelenota ananas, Thelenota anax, Holothuria fuccogilva, and Actinopyga mauritiana, are used as a functional food and traditional medication [3]. According to previous research, polysaccharides, triterpene glycosides, phenols, and lipids can be isolated from the invertebrate [4, 5]. Several studies have shown that compounds possessing antimicrobial, antioxidant, anticancer, and anti-hyperglycemic activities such as saponins, phenolic compounds, and omega-3, can be extracted from the body wall, tentacles and viscera of sea cucumbers [6]. Due to this, sea cucumbers have the potential to be reared in many aquaculture systems for use in the food and biomedicine industries. Although many species of sea cucumbers are raised in the aquaculture industries of Asian countries, not much research has been conducted on the ability of different sea cucumbers to be ideally cultured in the aquaculture environment of the United States despite their health benefits. As a result, it is important to find the most resilient species of sea cucumbers from the waters of the United States for the aquaculture system.

One of the species, the Orange-footed Sea cucumber or C. frondosa can be found in the cold waters of the Atlantic Ocean. C. frondosa can be found in the benthic areas of the water, possesses an elongated leathery body and can grow up to 40-50cm in length and 10-15cm in width [6]. This species has been found to have bioactive compounds such as Frondoside A that has the ability to treat pancreatic cancer and breast cancer [7, 8]. As a result, C. frondosa is seen as a suitable species to culture industrially for nutraceutical benefits [8]. Isostychopus badionotus, or the chocolate chip sea cucumber, is a type of sea cucumber found in the Gulf of Mexico [1, 9]. This species can be found primarily on rocky bottoms between the cracks that are in 2.5m depth of water and they tend to have an average size and weight of 324mm and 628g respectively [10]. Medicinal compounds with anti-coagulant and anti-inflammatory properties have been found in this species, and in several countries, the animal is considered edible for nutritional purposes [11, 12]. P. pygmaea is a small, stiff brown sea cucumber found in the Gulf of Mexico [13] that possess bioactive compounds with the potential for SARS-CoV-2 treatment, despite not being known to be edible [14, 15].

In many animals, it has been found that stress-induced changes can suppress the immune response in an animal [16]. For animals in an aquaculture system, stressors that the animals often encounter such as handling stress can reduce the quality of the species [17, 18]. As a result, prior to culturing a species, it is important to evaluate the ability of the sea cucumber to mitigate stress without affecting the overall health and quality of the animal, or its nutritional and medicinal benefits. The immune responses of sea cucumbers depend on the coelomocytes that are in the coelomic fluid [19]. During stressful conditions and pathogenic exposures, these cells participate in maintaining homeostasis and eliminating pathogens [19].

As the sea cucumbers encounter stress or pathogens, the invertebrate undergoes cellular responses to maintain homeostasis and overcome the disease state [20]. In the coelomic fluid of sea cucumbers, there are four major types of coelomocytes (Fig 1): red spherule cells, white spherule cells, phagocytic cells, and vibratile cells [19, 26]. They all have functions relating to antibacterial activity, inflammation, wound healing, encapsulation, graft rejection, and cytotoxic activity in the body of sea cucumbers [21]. Red and white spherule cells were found to secret lipase, peroxidase, and serine proteinase resulting in the breakdown of materials after phagocytosis [22, 23]. Phagocytes contain lysosomal enzymes that ingest and destroy unwanted organisms or particles they encounter [24]. Vibratile cells are highly motile and known to assist in the circulation of the coelomic fluid [25, 26]. The vibratile cells also can degranulate during the clotting process in the animal [25].

Fig 1. Types of coelomocytes in echinoderms.

Fig 1

Red arrow = red spherule cells, white arrow = white spherule cells, blue arrow = vibratile cells, black arrow = phagocytic cells [26].

Although studies have been conducted on the medicinal and nutritional benefits of sea cucumbers, they have only been focused on species that reside in the East Asian and Middle Eastern countries [2, 3, 2729]. Due to this, it is important to explore the medicinal properties of sea cucumber species in other parts of the world. One of the areas that were not studied extensively for sea cucumber species and their medicinal benefit is the United States. To determine the most resilience species best fit for aquaculture, our study evaluates three relevant sea cucumber species from the Eastern United States.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Collection of coelomic fluid and tissue

Three species of sea cucumbers, Cucumaria frondosa, Isostychopus badionotus, and Pentacta pygmaea were purchased from Gulf of Maine Inc (Pembroke, Maine) and Gulf Specimen Marine Lab (Panacea, Florida) respectively and reared in the aquaculture lab of Purdue University Fort Wayne. Coelomic fluid was collected through midsagittal dissection with a syringe after the animals were euthanized (n = 6 for each species). For some of the species, data collection was completed in technical replicates. The coelomic fluid was immediately kept on ice for analysis of coelomocytes, coelomic protein level, lysozyme activity, and phagocytic capacity.

2.2 Total and differential cell count

After obtaining the coelomic fluid samples, 50μl of coelomic fluid was mixed with 50μl of the anticoagulant, Dipotassium Ethylenediamine Tetraacetate (Sequester-Sol, USA). Then, 25μl of the mixture was loaded into a hemocytometer. Four different types of cells, phagocytic cells—red spherule cells, white spherule cells, and vibratile—were counted to find the differential coelomocyte count (DCC) (Fig 1).

Then the differential cell counts were summed up to find the total coelomocytes count (TCC). Top left and right 16 squares of the hemocytometer were counted and averaged. To obtain cells per milliliter, the following equation described was used [30]:

CellsmL=cellcountnumberofcountedcorners×dilutionfactor(2)×104

2.3 Total coelomic protein

Total coelomic fluid protein was measured using a Protein Refractometer (VEEGEE Scientific Inc. Kirkland, WA). Two to three drops of coelomic fluid without anticoagulant were added to the surface of the prism of the calibrated refractometer. Afterward, coelomic protein (g/100ml) was read holding the refractometer under the light.

2.4 Lysozyme activity assay

Before initiating the lysozyme assay, a suspension of Micrococcus lysodeikticus was made at a concentration of 0.2mg/ml using 0.05M (pH = 6.2) sodium phosphate buffer. 25μl of collected coelomic fluid without anticoagulant was added into a cuvette with 1ml of the bacterial suspension. Then, the absorbance was measured at 1 minute and 5 minutes using a spectrophotometer at 540 nm. Lysozyme activity assay (LAA) was calculated according to the formula [31]:

LAA=(finalabsorbanceinitialabsorbance)totalelapsedtime(minute)

2.5 Phagocytic capacity

50μl of coelomic fluid was mixed with 50μl of the anticoagulant. Then, to a double cytoslide microscope slide, 50μl was pipetted into each circle [32]. The slide was incubated for 90–120 minutes at room temperature. After the first incubation, 50μl of formalin-killed bacteria (Bacillus megaterium) was added to each circle of the glass slide and was incubated again for 60 minutes at room temperature. When incubation was complete, the slide was washed with phosphate buffer saline (PBS) for 1 minute. Then, it was fixed with methanol for 1 minute, stained with Wright-Giensa stain for 20 seconds, and rinsed with PBS. The slide was air-dried and counted under the microscope. Positive (≥5 engulfed bacteria) and negative phagocytic cells at a location were recorded to find the percent of phagocytic capacity [25].

2.6 Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Sigma Plot® 14.5 (Systat Software Inc). To assess statistical significance (p<0.05), pairwise comparisons were performed using a Tukey’s HSD test (post ANOVA comparison of multiple means). The data presented in this experiment are illustrated as means ± SEM.

3. Results

From the coelomic fluid obtained from each species, four different cell types were counted: phagocytic, red spherule, white spherule, and vibratile (Fig 2). We found phagocytic cell concentrations of 127.83±21.11 x 104 cells/mL, 27.50 ±9.41 x 104 cells/mL, and 56.00±0 x 104 cells/mL for C. frondosa, I. badionotus, and P. pygmaea, respectively. When compared to I. badionotus for phagocytic cells concentration, C. frondosa had significantly higher values (F = 10.5903572, p<0.05). On the other hand, when the phagocytic cell concentration of C. frondosa was compared to P. pygmaea, no statistical significance was found (F = 1.23612866, p = 0.30293969). For red spherule cells, there were 14.83±10.52 x 104 cells/mL for C. frondosa, 58.50±8.96 x 104 cells/mL for I. badionotus, and 13.00±0 x 104 cells/mL for P. pygmaea. No significant differences were found among the three species (F = 1.16299833, p = 0.35147122). Regarding white spherule concentration, C. frondosa, I. badionotus, and P. pygmaea had 30.83±3.29 x 104 cells/mL, 25.50±8.96 x 104 cells/mL, and 15.00±0 x 104 cells/mL, respectively. No significant differences in white spherule cell concentrations were found among the groups (F = 0.77763541, p = 0.48539954). Lastly, there were 141.67±23.85 x 104 cells/mL, 27.50±11.08 x 104 cells/mL, and 63.00±0 x 104 cells/mL of vibratile cells for C. frondosa, I. badionotus, and P. pygmaea respectively. The concentration of vibratile cells between C. frondosa and I. badionotus were significantly different (F = 10.9502412, p<0.05). When C. frondosa was compared to P. pygmaea, no statistical significance was found (F = 3.13936934, p = 0.11971647).

Fig 2. Differential cell count (cells/mL) of Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. pygmaea).

Fig 2

The cell concentrations illustrated are averaged. Different alphabets represent significantly different concentrations among the species for each cell type (p<0.05).

The total cell count was obtained for each type of species (Fig 3). The total cell count concentrations were 315.17±71.65 x 104 cells/mL for C. frondosa, 139.00±45.09 x 104 cells/mL for I. badionotus, and 147.00±0 x 104 cells/mL for P. pygmaea. When the statistical analysis was conducted, the total cell count concentration for C. frondosa was significantly different when compared to I. badionotus (F = 5.24555283, p<0.05).

Fig 3. Total cell count (cells/mL) of Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. pygmaea).

Fig 3

The cell counts illustrated are averaged. Different alphabets represent significantly different concentrations of cells among the species (p<0.05).

Coelomic fluid protein concentration was 1.85±0.09 g/100mL for C. frondosa, 2.80±0.07 g/100mL for I. badionotus, and 3.58±0.13 g/100mL for P. pygmaea (Fig 4). Coelomic protein concentrations were all significantly different from one species to another and C. frondosa produced the lowest concentration of coelomic protein compared to I. badionotus, and P. pygmaea (F = 95.480557, p<0.05).

Fig 4. Coelomic protein (g/100mL) of Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. pygmaea).

Fig 4

The concentrations are illustrated in mean +SEM. Different alphabets represent significantly different concentrations of coelomocyte protein among the species (p<0.05).

We also examined the lysozyme activity of the three species to measure the ability of lysozyme present in the coelomic fluid to break down bacterial cell walls (Fig 5). We observed that the activities were 2.60 x 10−3±5.60 x 10−4 absorbance/minute for C. frondosa, 6.50 x 10−4±7.4 x 10−5 absorbance/minute for I. badionotus, and 1.25 x 10−3 ±1.50 x 10−4 absorbance/minute for P. pygmaea. After statistical analysis, lysozyme activity of C. frondosa was significantly different when compared to I. badionotus and P. pygmaea (F = 5.68851657, p<0.05).

Fig 5. Lysozyme activity (absorbance/minute) of Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. pygmaea).

Fig 5

The activities are illustrated in mean +SEM. Different alphabets represent significantly different lysozyme activity among the species (p<0.05).

Lastly, we looked at phagocytic capacity as a measure of immunological status (Fig 6). The percentages of phagocytic capacities were 85.86±4.30%, 76.25±3.33%, and 69.12±4.01% respectively for C. frondosa, I. badionotus, and P. pygmaea. No statistical differences were found between the species (F = 3.86272579, p = 0.05714963).

Fig 6. Phagocytic capacity (%) of Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. pygmaea).

Fig 6

The capacities are illustrated in mean +SEM. There were no significant differences among the three species (p>0.05).

4. Discussion

Based on the results generated in this project, we were able to find the best species with physiological and immunological parameters. We determined this based on the differential cell count concentrations. Overall, we observed that C. frondosa had higher cell counts for all cell types counted, as well as the total cell count. This could have been due to the size differences between the species studied in this research as C. frondosa was the biggest species compared to the other two. Other studies supported our results as the authors showed that higher coelomocyte counts and enhanced concentration of phagocytes were seen over time when C. frondosa was induced with stress [20, 33]. In our result for differential cell count, we also saw that C. frondosa had a significantly high number of phagocytic cells, which could indicate a better immune response. Even though the data analysis showed no significant differences, some phagocytic capacity was seen in C. frondosa as we expected due to higher count of phagocytic cells. Although not all results for differential and total cell counts were significant, we can imply that C. frondosa has the highest number of counted immune cells in its coelomic fluid compared to I. badionotus and P. pygmaea.

During stressful and pathogenic encounters, proteins help maintain homeostasis and fight against pathogens are secreted into the coelomic fluid [34]. We measured the coelomic protein concentrations of the three species and found that C. frondosa had the highest concentration of coelomic protein among the three species. In a previous study, it has been shown that sea cucumbers produce an increased number of proteins such as heat shock proteins and lysozymes to maintain homeostasis during stressful situations [35, 36]. In addition to the coelomic protein, we also observed significantly different lysozyme activity when C. frondosa was compared to I. badionotus and P. pygmaea. We found that C. frondosa has the highest lysozyme activity and lysozyme activity was also seen in the coelomic fluid of C. frondosa in a previous study [37]. It is possible that I. badionotus and P. pygmaea had less production of coelomic protein compared to C. frondosa due to dietary differences and building blocks availabilities in different niches they reside.

5. Conclusion

Based on these results, we can conclude that C. frondosa has the best immunological and physiological properties among the three species. It is important to find the best sea cucumber species for the aquaculture industry as it needs to be able to handle stress and maintain healthy conditions in order to be cultured effectively for nutritional and medicinal purposes.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Toral-Granda V., & Mercier A. Sea cucumbers. A global review on fishery and trade. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. 2008. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262973901 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Purcell SW, Samyn Y, Conand C. Commercially important sea cucumbers of the world. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pangestuti R, Arifin Z. Medicinal and health benefit effects of functional sea cucumbers. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine. 2018;8: 341–351. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcme.2017.06.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bordbar S, Anwar F, Saari N. High-value components and bioactives from sea cucumbers for functional foods—a review. Marine Drugs. 2011;9: 1761–1805. doi: 10.3390/md9101761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Xu C, Zhang R, Wen Z. Bioactive compounds and biological functions of sea cucumbers as potential functional foods. Journal of Functional Foods. 2018;49: 73–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2018.08.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hossain A, Dave D, Shahidi F. Northern Sea cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa): A potential candidate for functional food, nutraceutical, and pharmaceutical sector. Marine Drugs. 2020;18: 274. doi: 10.3390/md18050274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Holtz EH, MacDonald BA. Feeding behaviour of the sea cucumber Cucumaria frondosa (echinodermata: Holothuroidea) in the laboratory and the field: Relationships between Tentacle insertion rate, flow speed, and ingestion. Marine Biology. 2009;156: 1389–1398. doi: 10.1007/s00227-009-1179-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pietrak M, Kim J, Redmond S, Kim Y-D, Yarish C. Culture of Sea Cucumbers in Korea: A guide to Korean methods and the local sea cucumber in the Northeast US. University of Maine; 2014. Available: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=seagrant_pub [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Drake VI, Kim E, Nigro HG, Bogantes VE, Janosik AM. The complete mitochondrial genome of the chocolate chip sea cucumber Isostichopus badionotus (echinodermata: Holothuroidea). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2021;6: 1947–1948. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2021.1937365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Acosta EJ, Rodríguez-Forero A, Werding B, Kunzmann A. Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in Colombia. PLOS ONE. 2021;16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chen S, Hu Y, Ye X, Li G, Yu G, Xue C, et al. Sequence determination and anticoagulant and antithrombotic activities of a novel sulfated Fucan isolated from the sea cucumber Isostichopus badionotus. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—General Subjects. 2012;1820: 989–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Olivera-Castillo L, Grant G, Kantún-Moreno N, Acevedo-Fernández JJ, Puc-Sosa M, Montero J, et al. Sea cucumber (Isostichopus badionotus) body-wall preparations exert anti-inflammatory activity in vivo. PharmaNutrition. 2018;6: 74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.phanu.2018.03.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Delgado-Blas V. H. Spatial and temporal distribution of benthic Polychaeta from the continental shelf of Tamaulipas, Gulf of Mexico. Revista de Biologia Tropical. 2001;49:1, 141–147. 11795142 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Red footed sea cucumber. Gulf Specimen Marine Lab. Available: https://491.899.myftpupload.com/red-footed-sea-cucumber/
  • 15.Dwivedi R, Samanta P, Sharma P, Zhang F, Mishra SK, Kucheryavy P, et al. Structural and kinetic analyses of holothurian sulfated glycans suggest potential treatment for SARS-COV-2 infection. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2021;297: 101207. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.101207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Adamo SA. The effects of the stress response on immune function in invertebrates: An evolutionary perspective on an ancient connection. Hormones and Behavior. 2012;62: 324–330. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Barton BA, Iwama GK. Physiological changes in fish from stress in aquaculture with emphasis on the response and effects of corticosteroids. Annual Review of Fish Diseases. 1991;1: 3–26. doi: 10.1016/0959-8030(91)90019-g [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yang M, Li X, Hu F, Ning Y, Tian R, Ding P, et al. Effects of handling stresses on fitness related behaviors of small sea cucumbers apostichopus japonicus: New insights into seed production. Aquaculture. 2022;546: 737321. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ramírez-Gómez F, Aponte-Rivera F, Méndez-Castaner L, García-Arrarás JE. Changes in Holothurian coelomocyte populations following immune stimulation with different molecular patterns. Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2010;29: 175–185. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2010.03.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hamel J-F, Jobson S, Caulier G, Mercier A. Evidence of anticipatory immune and hormonal responses to predation risk in an echinoderm. Scientific Reports. 2021;11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89805-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gross PS, Al-Sharif WZ, Clow LA, Smith LC. Echinoderm immunity and the evolution of the complement system. Developmental & Comparative Immunology. 1999;23: 429–442. doi: 10.1016/s0145-305x(99)00022-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Canicattí C, Tschopp J. Holozyme a: One of the serine proteases of Holothuria polii coelomocytes. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry. 1990;96: 739–742. doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(90)90223-g [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Johnson PT. The coelomic elements of sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus). Histochemie. 1969;17: 213–231. doi: 10.1007/bf00309866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dang H, Zhang T, Yi F, Ye S, Liu J, Li Q, et al. Enhancing the immune response in the sea cucumber Apostichopus japonicus by addition of Chinese herbs houttuynia cordata thunb as a food supplement. Aquaculture and Fisheries. 2019;4: 114–121. doi: 10.1016/j.aaf.2018.12.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chia F-S, Xing J. Review Article Echinoderm Coelomocytes. Zoological Studies. 1996;35: 231–254. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Smith LC, Ghosh J, Buckley KM, Clow LA, Dheilly NM, Haug T, et al. Echinoderm immunity. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2010;708: 260–301. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8059-5_14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mohamed IN. Optimum dose of sea cucumber (Stichopus chloronotus) extract for wound healing. Medicine and Health. 2017;12: 83–89. doi: 10.17576/mh.2017.1201.09 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sicuro B, Levine J. Sea cucumber in the Mediterranean: A potential species for aquaculture in the Mediterranean. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2011;19: 299–304. doi: 10.1080/10641262.2011.598249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wijesinghe WAJP, Jeon YJ, Ramasamy P, Wahid ME, Vairappan CS. Anticancer activity and mediation of apoptosis in human HL-60 leukaemia cells by edible sea cucumber (Holothuria edulis) extract. Food Chemistry. 2013;139: 326–331. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.01.058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yeh S-T, Liu C-H, Chen J-C. Effect of copper sulfate on the immune response and susceptibility to vibrio alginolyticus in the white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2004;17: 437–446. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2004.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mumu SK, Mustafa A. Modulation of acute stress and immune response in tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, using longevity spinach, Gynura procumbens extract, as nutraceuticals. Journal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry. 2022;43: 678–694. doi: 10.1080/15321819.2022.2080558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mustafa A, MacWilliams C, Fernandez N, Matchett K, Conboy GA, Burka JF. Effects of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus Salmonis Kröyer, 1837) infestation on macrophage functions in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2000;10: 47–59. doi: 10.1006/fsim.1999.0229 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jobson S, Hamel J-F, Hughes T, Mercier A. Cellular, hormonal, and behavioral responses of the holothuroid Cucumaria frondosa to environmental stressors. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2021;8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.695753 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Patruno M, Thorndyke MC, Candia Carnevali MD, Bonasoro F, Beesley PW. Growth factors, heat-shock proteins and regeneration in echinoderms. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2001;204: 843–848. doi: 10.1242/jeb.204.5.843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Meng X-liang Dong Y-wei, Dong S-lin Yu S-shan, Zhou X. Mortality of the sea cucumber, Apostichopus japonicus selenka, exposed to acute salinity decrease and related physiological responses: Osmoregulation and heat shock protein expression. Aquaculture. 2011;316: 88–92. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tian Y, Liang X-wang, Chang Y-qing, Song J. Expression of C-type lysozyme gene in sea cucumber (Apostichopus japonicus) is highly regulated and time dependent after Salt Stress. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2015;180: 68–78. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2014.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Haug T, Kjuul AK, Styrvold OB, Sandsdalen E, Olsen ØM, Stensvåg K. Antibacterial activity in Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (echinoidea), Cucumaria frondosa (holothuroidea), and Asterias Rubens (Asteroidea). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2002;81: 94–102. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2011(02)00153-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini

24 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-17088Comparative Physiological Study of Sea Cucumbers from Eastern Waters of United StatesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mustafa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

The article has some interesting observation and information for Comparative Physiological Study of Sea Cucumbers from Eastern Waters of United States. I am informing you that the manuscript has been recommended and acceptance for publication, but also suggest some suggestion to your manuscript. The Introduction to discussion part gives a good informational and original observation context to the study, but moves abruptly without proper linking to a statement of objectives. The results text should focus on which features of the data sets are of particular very interesting whole manuscript.

Authors follow first PLOS ONE general instruction guidelines; carefully check journal formatted of the style.

2. Check the grammar part and plagiarism thoroughly.

3. Authors must incorporate all the corrections which I made in the manuscript.

4. Recent references to add me for your future research and outcome of your manuscript.

5. Attention may please be given to the corrections or modifications indicated in the enclosed manuscript while typing the revised manuscript.

6. Whole manuscript thoroughly checks plagiarism part very important and improve the research.

7. Line No. 20, introduction I. badionotus should be Isostychopus badionotus.

8. Most of the place mentioned reference in number, but some other place has been cited author and year? i.e. Xu et al. (2018), Acosta et al. (2021), Yeh et al. (2004), Mumu & Mustafa (2022), Jobson et al. (2021),

9. Figure number 1.1. not available anywhere in the MS, what is the meaning of the figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 etc and also figure caption always should be bottom of the figure.

Best Wishes

Thanking you,

Thanking you,

Reviewer #2: The research paper was well written and explained properly.

In the entire research paper et al must to change to italics.

Graps present very good manner.

Methodology present written and explained properly.

Reviewer #3: Overall, the science is good, and the results are conclusive. However, I think the authors need to develop their narrative and discussion. Generally, statements in the introduction and abstract are broad without development or many connecting ideas. The discussion doesn’t provide any insight into implications or steps forward. It is just reiterative of the results. The authors must focus on concision and ask themselves, “Is this informative or just taking up space? What does the reader need to know to understand the importance of my research? What does the reader need to know in order understand why I did the research with these methods?”

That said, I do think that after revision, this paper may be fit for publication in PLOS ONE.

The real issues that limit it from publication in any journal are in reference to statistical tests. Statistical tests were not described in the methods, which makes p-values listed in the results meaningless. Unfortunately, this is accompanied by the lack of a public database, so I cannot even conduct my own statistical tests to validate their results as a reviewer. Luckily, this should be an easy fix for the authors during revisions. More details are provided below.

There are also some issues with the first figure that must be fixed prior to publication.

I did not edit grammatical errors, and instead focused on the structure of the paper and development of ideas. Many issues were gleaned over, and in my comments, I use examples to illustrate my point. My comments are not an exhaustive list of things that should be revised prior to publication. More specific comments are below.

Good luck with revisions, and I look forward to reading it again in a few months.

Abstract:

Sentences 2 and 3 would benefits from an explicit connection between ideas. How is their use in medicine linked to the need to better understand cucumbers' physiological and immunological properties?

I also wonder why, if Korea, China, and Japan are the countries culturing cucumbers, what is the point of studying American species? Similarly, why did you count these cells? Can you briefly state their function and why they are important?

The conclusion is good, just need to be more explicit with how your ideas are connected and their implications.

Include your research question. It is currently stated as the last sentence of the manuscript.

I’m sure your study is valuable; I just think you need to explicitly validate why you completed your study. Otherwise, people won’t understand the point of your paper and opt to read other articles. Each idea in your abstract is distinct, and without more context, I find it difficult to understand how all your ideas are connected. Your introduction paragraphs do a better job at outlining the relevance of your research and comparative studies. Your abstract would benefit from the incorporation of a few of these introductory ideas.

Keywords:

The keywords are more phrases than words. Perhaps opt for something along the lines of: “sea cucumbers, Cucumaria frondosa, Isostychopus badionotus, Pentacta pygmaea, physiology, immunology, aquaculture”

Introduction:

One thing that should be resolved is the lack of detail pertaining to the medicinal and nutritional benefits of consuming sea cucumbers in the first two paragraphs. See the following sentence: “Several studies have shown that these compounds have anti-cancer, antiinflammatory, anti-microbial, anti-angiogenic, anti-hypertension, anti-hyperglycemic, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory activities [6].” This sentence (from your first paragraph) does a nice job of introducing some benefits. However, as you continue through your introduction, you don’t expand on these at all. Do species differ in their benefits? How is this determined? If it’s determined by the cells you counted, explicitly state that. If you are purely evaluating the physiology and immunology of the cucumbers to select the most resilient species for aquaculture, independent from human health benefits, explicitly state that. It feels like there is a lot of missing information that would benefit the reader before diving into your study.

Perhaps I am feeling this way due to a general lack of concision that makes the paper feel ‘fluffy’.

I acknowledge that you do explicitly state potential benefits sometimes. For example: “Although this species is not known to be edible, it has been found to have bioactive compounds with the potential to treat SARS-CoV-2 [15].” However, statements like this are washed out by generally uninformative broad statements: “Due to its medicinal and nutritional benefits, C. frondosa is seen as a species to further culture in the aquaculture industry [8].”

Take the following three sentences:

“The last species in this study is P. pygmaea and it resides in the water of the Gulf of Mexico [13]. This species is brown in color and is considered to be small in size (4-6cm) with ossicles in its body wall that makes it stiffer than other sea cucumbers [14]. Although this species is not known to be edible, it has been found to have bioactive compounds with the potential to treat SARS-CoV-2 [15].”

This could easily be reduced to the following:

P. pygmaea is a small, stiff brown sea cucumber found in the Gulf of Mexico [13] that possesses bioactive compounds with potential for SARS-CoV-2 treatment, despite not being known to be edible [14,15].

If there is limited information or evidence on the medicinal and nutritional benefits of these cucumbers, that’s fine. Just be explicit about the knowledge gaps.

The last two paragraphs in your introduction do a much better job than the first two. This is where your research question is finally outlined: Which cucumber has the highest tolerance to stress and is best fit for aquaculture? State this research objective explicitly both in the abstract and the introduction. It gets lost in the manuscript’s current structure. Then follow the research question with describing the information the reader needs to answer this question. (This concept should also be incorporated into your abstract, which currently misses the mark.)

The last sentence would benefit from some development:

“In this experiment, we study the immunological and physiological properties of coelomic fluid from three sea cucumber species collected from the waters of the Eastern United States: Cucumaria frondosa (C. frondosa), Isostychopus badionotus (I. badionotus), and Pentacta pygmaea (P. Pygmaea). The physiological parameters measured in this study will tell us about the overall health of the sea cucumbers.”

Are you measuring health or are you measuring resilience? If one or the other, explain why in the previous paragraphs. Why only state physiological parameters? Again, why are you testing resilience? Maybe a sentence like this would be more effective: “Our study evaluates three relevant sea cucumber species from the Eastern United States, to infer the most resilient species best fit for aquaculture.”

Materials and Methods:

For this section, I do not have the expertise to evaluate the preparation methodology in depth. However, the replication of n=6 seems fine and the preparation of samples on ice immediately following euthanasia is a generally good practice. Results discussed later seem reliable pending inclusion of statistical methods.

“The tissues (Body Wall, Viscera, and Tentacle) obtained from these invertebrates were kept at -80◦C after rinsing for future experiments.” I don’t think this needs to be stated unless the samples are formally reposited into a collection with collection numbers.

Statistical tests are not described in the materials and methods. This must be included, or the p values listed in the results have no meaning.

Results

No information on tests used for statistical comparison, accompanied by the (P>0.05 and P<0.05) (p should be lower-case) makes me unable to evaluate the results. If p is greater than 0.05, report the exact digit. Also, include the test-statistic value that is derived alongside the p-value. This helps readers evaluate the strength of your results and conclusions. Until this issue is resolved, the manuscript is not fit for publication.

I will more critically evaluate the results upon revision.

Discussion

I hold the similar qualms with the discussion as I do with the introduction. Language is generally vague without much in-depth insight. You only include a couple extra studies with similar results. I would really love to see some conceptual development to better understand why C. frondosa had better immunological and physiological properties. Following development of these ideas, could you provide a framework for how this could be implemented in aquacultural practices?

There is also no discussion about the other two species with comparatively worse performance. How does this compare to the general literature? Should we be concerned about these species’ survival amidst climate change? Or are they just not good candidates for aquaculture?

Let me be clear, I am not asking for tangents or speculation beyond what your results present. However, it would be nice to see further development of ideas and implications. The discussion section as it stands is more of a results section with evidence, and not a real discussion about the concepts evaluated.

Figures

There are no figure numbers associated with your figures.

Cell identification figure: the arrows are not always explicit in what they are pointing to. If possible, it would be nice to move the arrows so that they are directly pointing to the cells. It also seems like this figure has been cropped from a larger panel. There is a white line on the right indicating this. There is also the letter A at the bottom left corner, but it is not a multi-panel figure. The scale bar is not defined in the figure caption either.

The 6 bar plots are good. I do think that they would be more effective as a single figure panel consisting of 6 subpanels. E.g., Figure2A-F instead of Figures 2-7. This would be easier for the reader to get a big picture of your results, but also easier for the typesetter, so that all the figures aren’t mashed into a relatively short paper.

Data availability

I would suggest uploading generated data as supplemental material, instead of relying on readers to email you if interested. Truly open science makes all data accessible immediately.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Colin Jeffrey Anthony

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-17088_reviewer.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-17088_230707_191110 reviewed .pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 30;18(10):e0293481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293481.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Jul 2023

A separate response file with details has been uploaded as "Responses to Reviewers'

July 28, 2023

To:

Professor Mohammed Fouad El Basuini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-17088

Subject: Responses to the reviewers’ comments for Manuscript: PONE-D-23-17088

Dear Editor,

Greetings.

Please review our responses below to the comments made by the reviewers. We believe that upon reviewing our responses, you will be kind enough to accept our manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE.

Reviewers Responses

Reviewer 1

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for recommending our following manuscript for publication.

PLOS ONE general instruction and guidelines were checked and carefully applied to the manuscript.

Grammar and plagiarism was double checked thoroughly.

Corrections the reviewer provided was carefully considered and incorporated.

Attention was given to the corrections or modifications in the enclosed manuscript.

Species name on Line No. 20 was corrected to Isostychopus badionotus

References have been cited correctly and uniformly.

Figure numbers were corrected to Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Reviewer 2

We would like to appreciate Reviewer 2 for the kind words and strong recommendation for acceptance of this article, and we italicized et al in the paper.

Reviewer 3

We are thankful of Reviewer 3’s contribution to helping us improve the manuscript for publication. We took careful consideration of the comments and in cooperated them into the paper.

The abstract was modified using the comments given by the reviewer we also added the research question in this section and clarified the importance of the species and their function.

The keywords recommended were added into the manuscript.

To better the flow of the introduction, additional information and languages were added into the introduction. We also made sure that we explicitly state the research question and purpose of the research. We appreciate the comments very much.

Comments were in cooperated into the manuscript and the method used to do statistic was added.

p was changed to lower case in the results and F values/ test-statistic values were added if p was greater than 0.05.

After reviewing the comments, the discussion was modified so the language seems more precise. We also added some conceptual developments to address why one of the species was better than the other

Figure numbers were changed and checked according to the reviewer’s comments.

Raw Data will be submitted together with the revised manuscript.

We believe that this revised manuscript if in good shape and in right format for publication in PLOS ONE.

We would like to thank the reviewer and the editor again for their kind consideration and contribution.

Thank you,

Ahmed Mustafa, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences

Director, Life Sciences Resource Center

Purdue University Fort Wayne

2101 E. Coliseum Blvd., Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA

Email: mustafaa@pfw.edu; amustafa@purdue.edu

Website: https://users.pfw.edu/mustafaa/

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses To Reviwers_Win.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini

15 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-17088R1Comparative Physiological Study of Sea Cucumbers from Eastern Waters of United StatesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mustafa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The authors have responded to all of my previous comments. The revisions were not overly thorough, but they did satisfy all previous requests. I can confirm that the science seems robust and reproducible. I approve this article for publication after the next round of minor revisions. I do not need to see this article again prior to publication.

Specific recommendations (allowed to ignore if the authors disagree):

- p values aren't necessary in the abstract

- remove the word "and" in the keywords

- change "physiological" to physiology in keywords

- "According to research" doesn't add anything to your narrative (e.g. line 101). Either specify the authors or remove the phrase

- line 143. "N" is used for population size, while "n" is used for sample size. Change N to n.

-line 154. remove the word described or say "As described in Yeh et al. [30], the following equation was used to calculate cells per milliliter:"

-In reference to the results section, I believe F typically comes before p

Reviewer #4: Well-planned and organized manuscript. I have very minor comments:

Keywords should be revised.

Line 154: remove "as described in"

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Colin J Anthony

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 30;18(10):e0293481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293481.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 Aug 2023

Responses to reviewers

Reviewers 1 and 2

•We thank reviewers 1 and 2 for their positive acceptance.

Reviewer 3

Comments/suggestions/recommendations:

•p values aren't necessary in the abstract

•remove the word "and" in the keywords

•change "physiological" to physiology in keywords

•"According to research" doesn't add anything to your narrative (e.g. line 101). Either specify the authors or remove the phrase

line 143. "N" is used for population size, while "n" is used for sample size. Change N to n.

•line 154. remove the word described or say "As described in Yeh et al. [30], the following equation was used to calculate cells per milliliter:"

•In reference to the results section, I believe F typically comes before p

Our response:

•We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for the comments, and we have changed the following recommended comments for the paper.

Reviewer 4

Comments/suggestions/recommendations:

•Line 154: remove "as described in"

Our response:

•We appreciate the kind words from Reviewer 4 and we removed the phrase mentioned by Reviewer 4.

We hope to get the acceptance at your earliest convenience.

Thanks.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Win Responses To Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini

13 Oct 2023

Comparative Physiological Study of Sea Cucumbers from Eastern Waters of United States

PONE-D-23-17088R2

Dear Dr. Mustafa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini, Professor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mohammed Fouad El Basuini

20 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-17088R2

Comparative Physiological Study of Sea Cucumbers from Eastern Waters of United States

Dear Dr. Mustafa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Mohammed Fouad El Basuini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-17088_reviewer.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-17088_230707_191110 reviewed .pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses To Reviwers_Win.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Win Responses To Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES